The Most Privileged Writers in America Are Whining

keith and emily

FURTHER SIGNS OF BIG FIVE COLLAPSE

Why are New York lit-media’s glamor couple, Keith Gessen and Emily Gould– Scott and Zelda without the charisma or talent– always whining?

First we saw Emily Gould in an essay early last year complaining how she spent a $200,000 book advance on a $1,700-a-month Brooklyn apartment and cat expenses.

http://www.metafilter.com/136982/How-much-my-novel-cost-me-by-Emily-Gould

An inadvertently hilarious tale of arguments with Mom; the health problems of her cat, Ruffles; envy of Lena Dunham; crying at high-priced Broadway plays; and the like. Woe is me!

THIS is the essay which caused lit critic Ed Champion to blow up his mind and career last summer in an 11,000-word rant which called Gould a literary narcissist; prelude to the first of Ed’s two nervous breakdowns.

Or maybe it was Emily Gould’s essay collection, And the Heart Says Whatever.

Whatever.

Now we have Keith Gessen adding to the Insider whine with an essay in the newest issue of his literary journal, n+1. The essay is titled “Brief History of a Small Office.” It chronicles the amazing fact that an intellectual journal written in dense prose and containing a ton of academic jargon per page isn’t swimming in bucks. The attitude is akin to Emily Gould’s: We’re special. Somebody pay for us! (Realities of the market are unacknowledged, because n+1‘s editors are, er, “Marxists.”)

Meanwhile, in just the past few months n+1 magazine has received splashy write-ups in both the New York Times and Washington Post. Merely one of n+1‘s staff of well-bred and well-connected editors, Keith Gessen regularly writes for America’s best-paying magazines. In just the past year, for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and New York magazine, among other outlets. Things couldn’t conceivably be better for these folks.

Keith Gessen and Company are apologists for Big Five publishing as well as recipients of its largesse. Yet it’s not enough! Maybe things aren’t quite as cushy in the posh New York literary world as we’ve been told.

-KW

Latest Seedy Lit-Establishment Scandal

What’s new in the clubby world of New York literature?

There seems to be controversy about a memoir by television producer Lena Dunham, which was attacked by a blogger named Kevin Williamson. Author Emily Gould has come to Dunham’s defense, in this Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/03/the_rights_lena_dunham_nonsense_just_wont_stop/

Lena Dunham apparently received a staggering $3.7 million advance for the memoir from Random House, the same Big Five publisher who gave fellow scandal-subject Tao Lin a mere $50,000 for one of his books.

http://gawker.com/5966563/here-is-lena-dunhams-37-million-book-proposal

Meanwhile, Emily Gould has apparently had her own dispute with Lena Dunham.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/emily-gould-lena-dunham_n_5607265.html

Emily Gould was also at or near the center of the recent Ed Champion blow-up.

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/new-york-lit-emily-gould-ed-champion-subtweet-war/

Emily Gould is also dating Keith Gessen, editor of the chic Brooklyn literary journal n+1, which recently published a long profile of Tao Lin by Frank Guan. To date, both Guan and the journal have refused to answer our questions about the profile.

Are you keeping score?

Are we seeing the cannibalistic death throes of a corrupt and incestuous artistic scene? Sure seems that way.

Emily Gould refers to Kevin Williamson as a “right-wing blogger.” Keith Gessen and his magazine have repeatedly stressed how left-wing they are. We’re forced to ask: What’s the difference? Members of their scene all seem to come from affluent, well-connected backgrounds. Their “art” invariably isn’t concerned with the larger world, but an obsession with self.

Lena Dunham’s memoir fits the model. Per Gawker, “it’s an invitation to get lost in the mind of a girl who is lost in her mind.” Emily Gould herself in her Salon argument for the book doesn’t argue for the artistic value of scenes of Dunham masturbating next to her sister. The scenes are justified and advocated for as therapy, a story Lena Dunham simply had to tell. (Inflicted on the public for a mere $3.7 million.) Tao Lin writes in the same vein of course; advertisements/exhibitions of self, but apparently doesn’t do solipsism well enough.

The larger question is whether any of these characters are generating meaningful ideas about art, culture, and the world. The question is whether this literary scene is creating relevant and meaningful literature.

-K.W.